characters demanded a belief in his moral perfections, that doctrine also necessarily followed, and was received before our present gospels existed.  My friend therefore cannot abash me by the argumentum ad verecundiam; (which to me seems highly out of place in this connexion;) for the opinion, which is, as to this single point, held by him in common with the first Christians, was held by them on transcendental reasons which he totally discards; and all after generations have been confirmed in the doctrine by Authority, i.e. by the weight of texts or church decisions:  both of which he also discards.  If I could receive the doctrine, merely because I dared not to differ from the whole Christian world, I might aid to swell odium against rejectors, but I should not strengthen the cause at the bar of reason.  I feel therefore that my friend must not claim Catholicity as on his side.  Trinitarians and Arians are alike useless to his argument:  nay, nor can he claim more than a small fraction of Unitarians; for as many of the them believe that Jesus is to be the Judge of living and dead (as the late Dr. Lant Carpenter did) must as necessarily believe his immaculate perfection as if they were Trinitarians.

The New Testament does not distinctly explain on what grounds this doctrine was believed; but we may observe that in 1 Peter i. 19 and 2 Cor. v. 21, it is coupled with the Atonement, and in 1 Peter ii. 21, Romans xv. 3, it seems to be inferred from prophecy.  But let us turn to the original Eleven, who were eye and ear witnesses of Jesus, and consider on what grounds they can have believed (if we assume that they did all believe) the absolute moral perfection of Jesus.  It is too ridiculous to imagine then studying the writings of Matthew in order to obtain conviction,—­if any of that school, whom alone I now address, could admit that written documents were thought of before the Church outstept the limits of Judea.  If the Eleven believed the doctrine for some transcendental reason,—­as by a Supernatural Revelation, or on account of Prophecy, and to complete the Messiah’s character,—­then their attestation is useless to my friend’s argument:  will it then gain anything, if we suppose that they believed Jesus to be perfect, because they saw him to be perfect?  To me this would seem no attestation worth having, but rather a piece of impertinent ignorance.  If I attest that a person whom I have known was an eminently good man, I command a certain amount of respect to my opinion, and I do him honour.  If I celebrate his good deeds and report his wise words, I extend his honour still farther.  But if I proceed to assure people, on the evidence of my personal observation of him, that he was immaculate and absolutely perfect, was the pure Moral Image of God, that he deserves to be made the Exclusive Model of imitation, and is the standard by which every other man’s morality is to be corrected,—­I make myself